The flip side of incrementalism is exaggerated rigidity. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (Thanks, Emerson!)

You need to not be a criminal to own a gun. I like that rule. Having the rule is only step one. Enforcing the rule is step two. Making the seller of a firearm responsible for confirming that the buyer is legal is easy, logical, and does not infringe upon a single right (CT has a free call-in system where you call an 800 number, run the check, get a "yea" or "nay" and a confirmation number). The seller can still choose to sell the weapon, even if the buyer fails the check, the seller just has to acknowledge that he has committed a crime.

It gives the power and the responsibility back to the people. I can accept that.

And lo, Kano looked down upon the field and saw the multitudes. Amongst them were the disciples of Uesheba who were greatly vexed at his sayings. And Kano spake: "Do not be concerned with the mote in thy neighbor's eye, when verily thou hast a massive stick in thine ass".

It's a shame how quickly the conversation turned from dead babes to "the government wants your guns!". Both sides of the aisle aught to be ashamed for their rhetoric.

Nope. Please stick to what you know. Trust me, you use more rhetoric than most people on this website. Yes, you are using it now.

Oh and who was talking about babies? No one? Okay, that is a logical fallacy GTFO.

At least the President is taking action, like a president should. He's not stupid, and knows full well the resistance he'll meet. Obama welcomes resistance. The GOP stance is, as usual inaction, and moderates will note it for 2016.

Taking action, even if I disagreed, would be to pass an EXECUTIVE ORDER banning all assault riffles or guns for that matter. That is taking action. Convening a panel, giving a speech and telling Joe Biden to get answers in a month is not action.

In my ideal world, both the Democrats and GOP come together to really tackle the issues that led to Sandy Hook...whatever they are.

No, in the ideal world guns wouldn't be necessary.

See what I did there?

Is the grief of giving up a gun is the same as the grief of giving up a child? Not even comparable.

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

6,855

Posted On:1/17/2013 3:55pm

1

Originally Posted by Scrapper

Devil,

The flip side of incrementalism is exaggerated rigidity. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (Thanks, Emerson!)

You need to not be a criminal to own a gun. I like that rule. Having the rule is only step one. Enforcing the rule is step two. Making the seller of a firearm responsible for confirming that the buyer is legal is easy, logical, and does not infringe upon a single right (CT has a free call-in system where you call an 800 number, run the check, get a "yea" or "nay" and a confirmation number). The seller can still choose to sell the weapon, even if the buyer fails the check, the seller just has to acknowledge that he has committed a crime.

It gives the power and the responsibility back to the people. I can accept that.

Forgive me if I'm not too excited about the prospect of modeling federal firearms law after the state of Connecticut.

Your line of thinking is logical, although I disagree. The problem, as you touched on is enforcement. The new laws never stop the bad guys. You know this. So, the new law only becomes a burden on the law abiding citizen. And the next time the government wants to pass a new law they'll use the same reasoning. More law, more law, more law, no crime reduction, no increased safety, bigger pain in the ass and more regulation for the good guy. That's it. That's how it always goes.

I would be willing to consider such a proposal as reasonable if the government first demonstrated a willingness to enforce the laws on the books. Then they would be on more solid ground when they started talking about additional "common sense" regulation. As for now, any talk of new legislation is no good.

If all our laws were enforced, murder would disappear. Cuz' it's illegal.

We are gonna get something, political expediency demands it. The background checks offend me the least.

And lo, Kano looked down upon the field and saw the multitudes. Amongst them were the disciples of Uesheba who were greatly vexed at his sayings. And Kano spake: "Do not be concerned with the mote in thy neighbor's eye, when verily thou hast a massive stick in thine ass".

So, if somebody has to flinch first, why should it be the American people who obey the law? Why shouldn't it be the government who doesn't enforce it? They work for us, remember? They need to show us they can uphold their end of the bargain before putting more of the onus on us to reduce crime. Now, I realize that's idealistic. It doesn't make it wrong, though.

I agree with your assessment that background checks aren't as bad as a magazine ban or some such ****. I disagree with your assessment that any new legislation will come of this. Do you really think Republicans in the House will cave? What do you think there motivation would be to do that? Their base is not screaming for gun control. The other party's base is screaming for gun control.

If anything is certain in this world, it's that politicians put their self interest above all else. Republicans in the House who will ever face a primary again would be committing political suicide by voting for any gun legislation. And many of those who will never face a primary again are completely content to tell the gun grabbers to **** off on general principle. I don't see a path to new legislation at all.

I can currently, in Florida, sell my firearms to whomever I wish so long as they are not precluded by law from owning them. There's a short list, things like non-citizens, felons, etc. So, there's sort of an implied background check but it's not a mandated NICS.

That strikes a reasonable balance, I believe - I am legally liable if I sell my gun to somebody who's not allowed to own one, however, I can do so in a manner that preserves the anonymity of the transaction, which is very important to some people: http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nati...-say-1.4463741

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

6,855

Posted On:1/18/2013 8:55am

2

Politicians aren't reasonable. From a political perspective, there are only two sides of this issue - take/don't take. Trying to be Mr. Reasonable on this issue will only get you fucked in the ass if you're a gun owner. We don't need enemies when we have friends willing to accept a little more legislation at a time. And for everyone who says universal background checks are okay, there are more people that are willing to go a little further than you in the name of reason. This is an issue where we should fight and claw for every inch of ground we have, if for no other reason than to delay the inevitable.

For instance, if we win now and get no new legislation, maybe the next time there's a push for gun control we'll only end up getting universal background checks out of it. If we cave on background checks now it will be magazines or something else we lose on the next time there's a push.

Plus, we don't have to cave now. We have the political power to stop gun control cold. We won't always have that power, so we should keep as many bargaining chips on the table as possible to push back the day when we're limited to bolt guns and revolvers.

At least the President is taking action, like a president should. He's not stupid, and knows full well the resistance he'll meet. Obama welcomes resistance.

He is definitely taking action, definitely not stupid and absolutely welcomes resistance. President Obama is being very tactical, especially by putting Biden in the driver's seat for this trip.

Originally Posted by submessenger

How well did we know the Libyans, or the Iranians, the Contras, or the mujahideen? We armed them all, expecting they would use the arms to mass effect.

When you say "we" if you mean the American people, I would answer 'probably not well enough to know what they would do'.

If you are referring to the administration that actually armed them, I would answer 'they had the intelligence and background to know their agenda and could predict the outcome with a great degree of certainty'. There is no way they did not know.

I have bought and sold quite a few guns over the past few years. I would never sell one to anyone who is a felon, underage, an addict or anyone an FFL couldn't legally sell to. I had a guy in Chicago offer me $200 for a Raven .25 once; was that a red flag?

I would have to agree with Devil about the neighbor killing someone with a car, knife or baseball bat that he bought from me. If I reasonably suspected that he was going to harm someone with any item, I wouldn't sell it to him, but you really never know.